Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda & Minutes 7:00 PM FORUM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:.......................... 7:30 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 16, 2000 MEETING MINUTES: 4. CONSENT AGENDA: Those items on the Council Agenda which are considered routine and non- controversial are included as part of the Consent Agenda. Unless the Mayor, a Councilmember, or member of the public specifically requests that an item on the Consent Agenda be removed and considered separately. Items on the Consent Agenda are considered under one motion, second and a roll call vote. Any item removed from the "Consent Agenda" shall be placed on the City Council Agenda as a separate category. A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. B) Consider Approval of 3rd Quarter Building Permits Report. 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: 6. PRESENTATIONS: A) Proclamation Declaring Youth Appreciation Week. (Mayor Mader) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8. OLD BUSINESS: A) Consider Approval of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Allow the Senior Care Overlay District in the C-2 and C-4 Use Districts (Case File #00-074). B) Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving the Final Planned Unit Development Plan and PUD Development Contract and Approval of the Final Plat and Development Contract for Wensmann 1st Addition. C) Consider Approval of Administrative Policy Regarding Waiver of Fees. 9. NEW BUSINESS: A) Consider Approval of a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Scott County Highway Department Draft 2001-2005 Capital Improvement Program. B) Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Solicitation of Bids for Well No.6 (City Project #02-00). C) Consider Approval of a Resolution Accepting Land Dedication for Well NO.6 for a Future Subdivision to be Known as Wilds 6th. D) Consider Approval of Revisions to the 2000 Fee Schedule Establishing a Storage Fee for Signs Confiscated for Illegal Location. E) Consider Approval of Report Regarding City Advisory Committees. F) Consider Approval of 2000 League of Minnesota Cities Legislative Policies. 110600 " "--""'-'"'1r"""" 10. OTHER BUSINESS: 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE 12. ADJOURNMENT 110600 . . ..-....~.. .......... ...-."T....... ...--.... ... . ... REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 16, 2000 CAI I Tn ORnFR ANn PI Fn~F nF AI I F~IANCE: Acting Mayor Petersen called the meeting to order. Present were Councilmembers Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, City Manager Boyles, City Attorney Pace, Finance Director Teschner, Public Works Director Osmundson, City Engineer McDermott, Assistant City Manager Walsh and Recording Secretary Meyer. APPRnVAI nF A~FNnA: MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. APPRnVAI nF MINIITF~ FROM OCTORFR 'J 2000 RF~III AR MFFTING MOTION BY ZIESKA, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE OCTOBER 2, 2000 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. CONSFNT ~GF~nA: (A) Consider Approval of Invoices to be Paid. (B) Consider Approval of Treasurer's Report. (C) Consider Approval of Building Permit Report. (0) Consider Approval of Fire Call Report. (E) Consider Approval of ~ Quarter Investment Report. (F) Consider Approval of ~ Quarter Budget Report. (G) Consider Approval of Deferred Assessment Application (Resolution 00-107). (H) Consider Approval of Massage Therapy License. ROVI ES: Briefly reviewed each of the consent agenda items. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. ITFM~ RFMnVFn F'RnM T~F cnN~FNT A~FNnA: NONE. PRF~FNTATlnNS: NONE. 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER '".M .. _"___....."__..'~.,".h._...'.... tr"" " PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Resolution Vacating a Portion of the 25-Foot Wide Drainage and Utility Easement Located on Lot 17, Block 1, Northwood Oaks estates 2"'D Addition. City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT October 16, 2000 PETERSEN: Declared the public hearing open. BOYLES: Briefly reviewed the item in connection with the staff report. No persons wished to address the Council on this item. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. GUNDLACH: Asked how often the City sees this type of request, and why the request was to vacate 5 feet rather than more. MCDERMOTT: Explained that a sewer line runs through the easement and requires a 1: 1 ratio for maintenance access on each side of the property line (i.e. if the sewer is 24 feet deep, 24 feet of access is required on each side of the line). The easement was originally 25 feet on each side of the property line because the sewer was to be placed centered. During construction the sewer was placed 5 feet south of the property line. Therefore, the City is comfortable vacating a 5-foot strip, but no more. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY ZIESKA, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-108 VACATING THE A 25-FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 17, BLOCK 1, NORTHWOOD OAKS ESTATES 2ND ADDITION. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. The next item on the agenda skipped to Item A of Old Business in order to accommodate the scheduled time for the next public hearing. (Consider Approval of a Resolution A warding Bid for Concession/Restroom Facility for Thomas Ryan Memorial Park). OLD BUSINESS Consider Approval of a Resolution Awarding Bid for Concession/Restroom Facility for Thomas Ryan Memorial Park. da item in connection with the staff report. BOYLES: Reviewed the agen . b re-bid with a general I the bids are good for? Asked if the project can e PETERSEN: Asked how ong contractor to possibly save money. th bid date of September 27th. OSMUNDSON: Advised that the .b.ids ~re ~~Oadndu~~~:eOssd~~~ef~~;ry t~ re-bid the construction of the . d the timeline and addltlona cos Dlscusse building. 2 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT October 16, 2000 PETERSEN and GUNDLACH: Noted that the park would not be opening until 2002 so there is time to re- bid the project if necessary. OSMUNDSON: Admitted that there was time, but believed that the current bid that is before the Council has good competitive numbers. GUNDLACH: Asked if there would be a potential that the warranty clock would start and possibly be used up before the building is even open. OSMUNDSON: Acknowledged that it is possible the warranty would start, but there is a need to have the building in so that finish work can be completed such as concrete work and sod. ZIESKA: Realizing that it depends on how much we want to pay, what is the latest start date? OSMUNDSON: Advised that he believes this is the best route to have the building completed by May 2001. It could be done by a general and have the building completed next summer, but his opinion was that it would cost significantly more. ERICSON: Commented that there has been a significant discrepancy in the initial price and the actual estimate at this point. OSMUNDSON: Noted that the architect has said that his estimate for the building has always been between $200,000 to $250,000. Advised that his past experience has indicated that buildings like this for cities are high-priced using a general contractor. BOYLES: Recalled that the prior agenda report on this item indicated that the estimated cost for the building was $145,000 for the building and $45,000 to extend sewer. The only difference in what we requested for bids and the current report seems to be the $6400 for concession equipment. Did not know where the original estimate came from. ERICSON: Noted that the actual difference, all things considered, is approximately $25,000. BOYLES: Correct. ERICSON: Asked by what percent the Public Works Director estimated the project cost would go up if it was bid with a general contractor. OSMUNDSON: 25% to 50%. ERICSON: Commented that although he is uncomfortable with the cost as proposed, does not believe there is anything to gain by bidding the contract with a general contractor, or deferring the matter. Also noted that he is hopefully that as new personnel handle bids and the bidding process improves, uncomfortable situations such as this will become less frequent. GUNDLACH: Agreed. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-109 AWARDING THE BID AND EXECUTION OF THE CITY'S STANDARD CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE THOMAS RYAN MEMORIAL PARK RESTROOM/CONCESSION BUILDING, ADDING THAT 3 _"_.-=.._...".__........~'~..'.... "".""'''__.'_'_ ...,...,,,....'~.w_ ..,"",,,o._'_'^ _..._..m.., .-.__.'. .. -~ lr City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT October 16, 2000 THE $6400 OF CONCESSION EQUIPMENT SHOULD NOT BE PURCHASED UNTIL JUST BEFORE INSTALLATION. GUNDLACH: Comfortable with the recommendation of staff, but concerned about the bid process when we received three bids and throw out two. ERICSON: Agreed. PETERSEN: Commented that it appears the Council is between a rock and a hard place and is uncomfortable with that position, but will support the motion. ZIESKA: Concurred with Councilmember Petersen's comments. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. The next item on the agenda was Item 7B (Special Assessment Hearing for City Project 12-00) Special Assessment Hearing for 2000 Improvements City Project 12-00 Oak Ridge Circle, Flandrau Circle, Fulbright Circle, Indian Ridge Circle, Euclid A venue, Maves Trail, Forsythe Road, Shannon Trail, Prior Circle and Shannon Circle Improvements and Consider Approval of a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the Project. TESCHNER: Briefly provided the staff report for both special assessment hearings. Reviewed the assessments for the projects and explained the special assessment process in connection with the staff report. ERICSON: Asked why the cost for one project is $4500 per unit and the other $900 per unit. TESCHNER: Explained that project 00-12 for Oak Ridge area is for reconstruction and included installation of concrete curb and gutter. The extent of the project is considerably greater than Fish Point and Fairlawn which was strictly a mill and overlay. PETERSEN: Declared the public hearing open. DOUG NELSON (5841 Shannon Trail): Asked why staff went away from the feasibility study as originally proposed and identified the Shannon Trail reconstruction as a different area. Noted a petition circulated in the neighborhood noting the concerns of the property owners in the area. Discussed the costs of front footage versus unit assessment and the view that some property owners are subsidizing the project for others. TESCHNER: Discussed the process for initiating the project that needed reconstruction, equal benefit in connection with accessibility for all neighbors and how an assessment solely based on front footage assessment is not necessarily equitable as far as benefit. The Council directed policy has successfully used a unit basis assessment. NELSON: Noted that as far as costs for construction, 150th Street will cost more. 4 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT October 16, 2000 TESCHNER: There are a number of factors to consider other than pure lineal footage. GUNDLACH: Noted that the assessment subcommittee did discuss the difference in assessing on a per foot basis versus a unit basis in this case. TESCHNER: Clarified that front footage assessments have been used by the City in the past when assessing 100% as in first time improvements. Once the infrastructure is in place and the issue is maintenance, the issue of benefit becomes equally shared by each unit and the assessment is only distributed on a 40% to 60% basis, 60% being picked up by the City as a whole for its portion of use for the area. NELSON: Noted that the neighborhood is generally in favor of the project. Asked for clarification that in this area, the first-time assessment for road costs was incurred by the developer for these subdivisions. TESCHNER: Confirmed, but those assessments assumed by the developer are passed along to the property purchasers. How the developer passes on those costs mayor may not be related to front footage. NELSON: Advised that he and his neighbors have seen a major increase from the feasibility study and would have like to see the assessment more in line with the feasibility study and the first public hearing. GUNDLACH: Noted that the neighborhood's concerns are taken very seriously and that the assessments subcommittee discussed it in great length. Advised that in this case, there was an economy of scale that help the City save money over the entire project. STEVE L1NDROUS (5827 Shannon Trail): Advised that he has no use for the roadways in Indian Ridge and Oak Ridge Court, so he does not see how his benefit is equal. Also asked how it was decided that the projects would be lumped together. Would have like to see the unit basis calculation initially in the feasibility study. TESCHNER: Clarified that the similar benefit across the neighborhood referred to the consistent standards for the reconstruction. Advised that once the scope of the project was decided, the consolidated rate was more economical and consistent with past projects. Discussed the calculation of front footage assessments. Advised that a unit basis assessment application distributes equal benefit regardless of front footage. ERICSON: Suggested advising property owners initially that the City implements a unit basis, rather than confusing the issue as the project progresses. LLOYD LUCHT (5968 Flandrau Circle): Discussed the additional costs of the project due to soil correction and how the staff never held any neighborhood meeting to explain the additional costs. Added that the increase in cost in still a question. Also commended the contractor on the project. McDERMOTT: Advised that there were additional costs due to soil correction costs, but those costs were allocated to the trunk reserve funds and none of the added costs were assessed to the property owners. Therefore, there was no adjustment to the assessment and no need for the neighborhood meeting. 5 ...~_...._-_.._..._....... City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT October 16, 2000 OSMUNDSON: Explained that originally the feasibility study required a 1-foot cut, after the soil borings were obtained, it became necessary to have a 2-foot cut across the project. TESCHNER: Added that the assessments for the Prior Hill property owners did go up due to the consolidation of the project area, just as the assessment for the property owners in Oak Ridge Court went down. The difference was approximately $800-$900 dollars. ERICSON: Commented that it appears the property owners are happy with the overall project, but that communication is the issue. THOM BONCHER (5791 Shannon Trail): Commented that property taxes are assessed on specifics, but assessments are allocated in lump sums. Believes the City needs to follow through with its quotes, and that there seems to be a trend by the Council that things always cost more than initially expected. PETERSEN: Commented that the City Council has made it a policy to acquire at least three bids whenever possible. TESCHNER: Noted the majority of the comments from the public hearing were in favor of consolidation and advised that the information provided is preliminary and based on estimates, not bids. BONCHER: Understood that the preliminary costs are based on estimates, but suggested that the estimates need to be better. NELSON: Commented that the projected costs from the feasibility study for the different areas, when calculated, there seems to be a disparity. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ERICSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. The Council took a brief recess. ERICSON: Commented that it appears that the assessments are as fair as possible and consistent with past practice and City policy. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-110 ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT 12-00. ZIESKA: Commented that it seems that staff did disclose that a unit basis calculation would be used and suggested that communication with residents refer to costs and assessments in that manner. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. 6 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT October 16, 2000 Special Assessments Hearing for 2000 Improvement City Project 13-00 Fairlawn Shores Trail and Fish Point Road Overlay Project and Consider Approval of a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the Project. PETERSEN: Declared the Assessment Hearing open. HUGH RIDDLE (15671 Fish Point Road): Noted that he bought the property in Nov. of 1999, and asked if the prior owners would have been notified. Advised that much more than neighborhood traffic utilizes the area, including the school district and Prior Lake Aggregate. TESCHNER: Clarified that the City did pick up 60% of the project costs. Further discussed the allocation to the school district, and advised that the roadway is designed as a collector street. MOTION BY GUNDLACH, SECOND BY ERICSON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY GUNDLACH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-111 ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CITY PROJECT 13-00. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. The next item on the agenda was Item 8B of Old Business (Consider Approval of a Resolution Awarding Bid for Playground Equipment for Five Neighborhood Parks.) OLD BUSINESS (This is the second item of Old Business and followed Item 7C (Special Assessment Hearing for City Project 13-00). Consider Approval of a Resolution Awarding Bid for Playground Equipment for Five Neighborhood Parks. BOYL.ES: Reviewed the agenda item in connection with the staff report. ERICSON: Commented that after discussing the item with the Parks Advisory Committee, he believes we have come a long way in how the City approaches the bidding process for park projects. Asked the City Manager to allow some specific time on the agenda for the joint meeting of the Council and Park Advisory Committee to discuss the issue. Believes there is a definite need for replacement of the equipment. Further noted that the PAC indicated that if the Council's intent was to go with the low bidder, the PAC would like to further review the item. Supported approving the item at this time as proposed while continuing to work on the process for soliciting bids for projects of this type. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 00-112 AWARDING THE BID FOR PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT FIVE PARKS AS PROPOSED. GUNDLACH: Based upon his discussions with the Parks Supervisor, he came prepared to support the item. However, further indicated that based upon the memo from the Mayor and the comments heard in the forum this evening, asked if the Council would consider deferring the item for additional follow- up. Believes that there may have been criteria that were too narrow in the specifications. 7 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT October 16, 2000 ERICSON: Agreed that the process is not perfect, but the process continues to improve and this particular item needs to move forward. . ZIESKA: Agreed that the project needs to move forward and the Council has had more than enough time to consider the item. PETERSEN: Will support the motion, but did not want to set any kind of a precedent where a vendor just adds more equipment and that's justification for a higher cost. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Consider Approval of 2000-2001 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Policies. BOYLES: Reviewed the agenda item and the issues before the Council. ERICSON: Advised that he did ask for this item to be placed on the agenda for Council consideration. Further noted that based upon an earlier vote of the Council, it did not support the existence of the Metropolitan Council. BOYLES: Advised that if there is a consensus that the City does not support any particular policy, direction should be given to me which I will relate at the membership meeting. MOTION BY ERICSON, SECOND BY ZIESKA TO INDICATE TO THE AMM THAT PRIOR LAKE DOES NOT SUPPORT POLICY 4-1 SUPPORTING THE EXISTENCE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. ERICSON: Suggested that each Council member, from a priority perspective, submit each of their list of priorities to the City Manager who will perform an overall tally to be submitted to the AMM. BOYLES: Clarified that there is the one particular policy the Council is concerned about and a priority list will be tallied and forwarded to the AMM for comment. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. Consider Approval of a Resolution Approving a Salary Plan for Unrepresented Employees for 2001. BOYLES: Reviewed the proposal in connection with the staff report. MOTION BY PETERSEN, SECOND BY ERICSON TO APPROVE THE SALARY PLAN FOR UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES FOR 2001 AS PROPOSED. VOTE: Ayes by Petersen, Gundlach, Ericson and Zieska, the motion carried. 8 City Council Meeting Minutes DRAFT October 16, 2000 OTHER BUSINESS I COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: BOYLES: Reminded Council members that staff is still seeking applicants for vacancies on the lake Advisory and Parks Advisory Committee. Frank Boyles. City Manager A motion to adjourn was made and seconded. The meeting adjourneg. 9